Legal Opinion
Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 20, 1990No. 88-791PublishedCited by 604 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scalia
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides in part: “If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court. . . shall impose upon the person who signed it... an appropriate sanction . . . .” In this case we must determine whether Rule 11 authorizes a court to impose a sanction not only against the individual attorney who signed, but also against that attorney’s law firm.
I
The action giving rise to the current controversy was instituted by plaintiff Northern J. Calloway against respondents for willful copyright infringement of his motion picture script and other…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Rubin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Chester R. Robinson and Wife, Frances Earline Robinson, and Roy K. Ewart and David B. Black v. The National Cash Register CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
- Calloway Ex Rel. LMN Productions, Inc. v. Marvel Entertainment GroupDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1986
3Cited by604 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Amanda Beck, a Minor, by Her Father, Henry J. Beck v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- King v. BurwellSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
599 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.